News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Hostnames.

Re:Hostnames by perlgeek on Saturday October 12, 2013 @05:01PM (#6540290)
Or simply have a naming convention for hosts. I realize that only makes sense for sufficiently large setups, but once your setup is large enough, it does make things easier.

At $work we maintain setups for customers, and our FQDNs are roughly <function><counter><environment>.<customer>.<ourdomain>.tld. So the second database server in the testing environment for customer "nasa" (hypothetical, of course) would be called db02t.nasa.<ourdomain>.<tld>.

It does make it pretty obvious from the FQDN what the used is being used for.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Hostnames by tillk on Saturday October 12, 2013 @05:04PM (#6540309)
I agree with this. Call servers after their purpose. I don't grow attached to servers anymore — especially in the cloud.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Hostnames by robbles on Saturday October 12, 2013 @09:01PM (#6541029)
It looks like there's two types of answers in this thread, and the difference between them is whether their infrastructure is cloud-based or running in a datacenter:

- Cloud: "Who cares? Name them after pokemon or dinosaurs, you can always reprovision and they won't last very long."

- Datacenter: "But what if the name doesn't make sense 16 months from now??"

[ Parent | on HN ]